IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-4564 of 2021(O&M)

Date of Decision: 26.02.2021.

Jagmohan & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.

....Respondents

CORAM: HON9BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate

For petitioners.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, AAG Punjab.

(Presence marked through video conference).

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Aggrieved qua non-according of the benefit of upper age

relaxation upto 45 years for the period they have served as Sikhia Providers,

on parity with government employees, the petitioners are before this Court

seeking an appropriate mandamus.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia relies on clause 5

(iii) of Advertisement dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) to contend that the

petitioners are entitled to age relaxation upto the age of 45 years for

recruitment as Hindi, Punjabi Masters, since they have been serving as

Sikhia Providers. For ready reference, the aforesaid clause is reproduced

herein below:-

<5. Age limit:-

XX

SHALINI BHATIA

2021.03.02 15:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

iii) The upper age limit of employees of Punjab, other

States and Central Government shall be 45 years.

XX

A perusal of the aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt that the

same is applicable only in respect of Government employees working either

in the State or in the Central Government services.

3.

On a pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that petitioners though not Government employees but have worked as

outsourced Sikhia Providers on the employment roll of the contractor.

However, they have been serving in the Government Institutions.

4.

That being so, I see no reason to treat the petitioners on parity

with the Government employees. Concededly, they were/ are on the pay roll

of a contractor. They may have served the State Government institutions but

they are not government employees.

5.

On an advance service of the copy of the petition, learned State

counsel joins the proceedings. She apprises this Court that only relaxation

permissible to petitioners is that they are exempted to appear for the

examination of Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET) conducted by

the State Government, keeping in view of their experiences for having

served as Sikhia Providers. She submits that relaxation of age as per the

clause ibid cannot be given to private employees.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners though controverts that the

relaxation is not only for Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test (PSTET)

examination but also for Pre-Primary Teachers, Head Teachers and Centre

Head Teachers.

SHALINI BHATIA

2021.03.02 15:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

7.

Be that as it may, the irrefragable factual position remains that

the petitioners are not Government Employees and the aforesaid relaxation

cannot be sought by them as a matter of right. Where it was deserved and

permissible the requisite relaxation as noted above has already been given to

the petitioners and similarly situated others in the private employment.

8.

No grounds are made out to interfere. Dismissed.

February 26, 2021

(ARUN MONGA)

Jiten

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No

SHALINI BHATIA

2021.03.02 15:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document